Under the Occupation Health and Safety Act 1994, the contractors can be

classified as employees of the company. Eventhough they are contracted,

OSHA 1994 states that a person employed through immediate employer at
the place of work of the industry or under the supervision of the principal
employer or his agent on work can be intepreted as an employee. And
therefore the OSHA 1994 is applicable in this case.
According to the act, the employer owes a duty of care towards employees.
From the case in hand, we can seee that safety briefings were held to inform
the contractors on the health and safety procedures. However the contractor
wasn't supplied with the necessary safety equipment required to carry out
the job. This is a breach of section 15(2) of the Occupational Safety And
Health Act 1994.
The contract worker also has a duty of care towards safety according to the
act. Under section 24 of the OSHA 1994, employees are expected to take
reasonable care for the safety and health of hmself and of other people who
may be affected by his acts or omissions at work.
The case states that the contractors were briefed on safety prior to
commencement of work. A reasonable person would agree that the
contractor would be aware of the safety equipments that should have been
used in the line of work. However section 24(1)(c) states that the safety
equipment and clothing shall be provided by the empoyer. The employer has
committed a tort in this case, and can be held liable for the injuries suffered
by the contractor.
Section 29 of the OSHA 1994 also states that a safety and health officer must
be present at the workplace, with a duty to ensure that the safety procedures
are observed at the workplace. The case doesn't state the presence of a
safety and health officer. A reasonable person would expect the safety and
health officer to have pointed out the absence of safety equipment while the
job was being carried out.